The rise of the Internet is undeniable, and unrestricted access from multifarious smart gadgets with more rapid 4G connectivity means that consumers’ potential usages of these devices in terms of the tasks they can accomplish online at any time an at any place are growing fast. In this milieu, the subject of online retail and its correlation with personal communication (either face-to-face or via phone) is being fervently discussed in all sectors.

And so it goes for insurance as well. For the past thirty years, personal connections have been dominated by the contact centre, and while not many can question that the Internet has greatly aided in generating quotes, the accepted rule is that phone calls and in-the-flesh visits are still a vital part of the sales cycle and a major force in enhancing conversion rates. While many situations may call for the application of the personal appearance, it is nevertheless the case that a rising share of everyday insurance tasks can be accomplished without it – in so far as the consumer agrees to it.

Mounting demand for self-service

Instances of these cases include online banking or even grocery check-outs show a significant – and increasing – percentage of consumers would rather ‘operate the system’ themselves, especially if it leads to avoiding queues and being able to finish such chores at their most convenient time.

As it applies now to the insurance sector, Junction recently revealed that one million BGL customers now choose to handle their own policies online. In the same manner, Ageas Insurance Solutions’ biggest motor brand, Auto Direct, moved to a self-service website earlier this year and saw 97% of its clients immediately opt for electronic documentation and messaging over paper.

It is certainly counter-intuitive to bypass this need for self-service, especially in insurance, where the advantage of the aggregator brands has produced a largely price-sensitive market.

This morning, like most mornings I sat drinking my coffee browsing my freshly updated list of news feeds and articles. All of a sudden I was floored by a video, my breath lost in a mix of laughter and horror. In it’s wake I was left with a new appreciation for how much technology has changed. Allow me to share this experience with you.

Consider how simple technology has become — how many times you have seen a child of only a few years old using an iPad with no effort at all? In only a few years technology changes in astonishing ways, but I for one find I often quickly forget the time before new invention X.

So how much progress have we made? Clearly technology has developed in amazing ways and as a society we have become much more comfortable with technology in every aspect of our lives. That said, we have some interesting issues this video reminds me of. The digital divide is one such issue. Across different age groups we have varying levels of expertise and security awareness on the Internet and many are left very exposed due to a lack of basic understanding.

What makes a secure password? How do you spot a phishing scam? How do you know if your web connection is encrypted? I have heard people say that security awareness is a temporal issue and that as the young generation grows up the problem will naturally be fixed – but I disagree. I’ve spoken to many young people who are extremely capable users of technology but who have less of a concept of privacy and security than older colleagues. Granted, I know many people who are my senior who struggle with these concepts too.

Within a week of each other, have both the European Commission and the white house put out a number of new rules designed to curb the growing cyber-attacks against public and private offerings. The most dangerous of these is aimed at what is called critical national infrastructure. The dimensions may be physical (e.g. , mains) or virtual, such as computer networks used by the financial system.

Together with his the union message on 11 February, released on Barack Obama Obama an executive order intended to plug hole that is left of the failure of Congress to pass legislation for cyber-security that complies with the growing threat. “We cannot look back years from now”, he said, “and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and the economy.” President’s frustration originates from the fate of two action. One is Cyber intelligence-sharing and Protection Act, known as CISPA, adopted by of the house of Representatives in last year, that is not managed to make it to a vote in the Senate (the white house threatened a veto because of concerns about privacy). The other is the Cyber security Act, which was supported by management, but fell victim to a Republican filibusters in the Senate.

If all sides agree on seriousness of the threat, can impede Americas biased split agreement even in cyber-security. The majority opinion poll emphasize national security and sharing of information, but want to avoid imposing oppressive government-set safety standards on private companies. Mr Obama’s executive order focuses on sharing information about threats between government and the private sector.

The shadowy world of cybercrime
was exposed in the recent federal indictment of eight men accused of
manipulating computer networks and ATMs to steal $45 million over seven months.
The heist combined sophisticated hacking with street-level hustle. In New York
City alone, thieves struck 2,904 cash machines over 10 hours on a single day in
February.

For all the wonders of the
digital revolution, there is a turbulent and largely hidden underside of theft
and disruption that grows by the day; the losses are often not counted in
stacks of $20 bills but rather in millions of dollars of intellectual property
stolen or compromised. Computer networks are vital to American capitalism and
society but remain surprisingly vulnerable to hijack and hijinks.

Also worrisome is the threat of
cyberattack on the nation’s infrastructure, such as electric grids or dams. The
Department of Homeland Security has issued a 13-page alert about possible
attacks on industrial control systems. According to a report in The Washington
Post, the warning expressed concern that an assault could go “beyond
intellectual property theft to include the use of cyber to disrupt … control
processes.”

The department did not identify
the adversary, but there has been concern about Iran’s ability to carry out cyber attacks
like the one that destroyed 30,000 computers at the state-owned Saudi oil company
Aramco.

Why does this matter? One of
the first digital weapons to target industrial control systems was Stuxnet, a
computer worm reportedly invented by the United States and Israel to damage
equipment in Iran used to enrich uranium that could be used in a bomb. If
Stuxnet was successful, as sources have claimed, it caused Iran’s centrifuges
to fail. As a method of slowing the march toward a nuclear weapon, Stuxnet was
ingenious and preferable to a conventional bombing attack.

In cyberspace, however, the
United States is not the only powerful actor. Other states increasingly have
the capability and the willingness to attack.

A
new arms race — a competition among adversaries — is heating up. The United
States and other nations are building offensive cyber-armies. It is past time
to debate this. So far, most of the U.S. offensive cyberprogram has been
cloaked as an intelligence matter. While secrecy is necessary for operations,
basic questions should be openly debated: Who decides to wage cyber war
when and why?